Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Goldman v. Kautz, 531 P.2d 1138.

50 citing documents.

State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Lopez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
Jacob Laurence v. Salt River Project Ariz. 2023
¶18 We have recognized that stare decisis “should not require [unbending] adherence to authority.” Derendal, 209 Ariz. at 424 ¶ 33 (); ¶ 37 (2003) (“Stare decisis is a doctrine of persuasion, not a rigid requirement .
Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Socaa v. Dtt Acc Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
v. Reeves, -09 (1990) (finding that when there are no material issues of fact, summary judgment does not offend the Arizona Constitution's guarantee that "the right to jury trial 'shall remain inviolate'") (quoting Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 23); (interpreting statutory language that "[a] trial by jury shall be had if demanded" as being procedural, rather than substantive).2 2 Dakota's reliance on cases recognizing a right to a jury trial in criminal cases is misplaced.
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 182 P.3d 1166 Ariz. 2008
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 182 P.3d 1166 Ariz. 2008
Section 22-320(A) (2002) fills in some of the gaps in limited jurisdiction courts, providing generally, that “[u]nless the demand [for a jury trial] is made at least five days before commencement of the trial, a trial by jury shall be deemed waived.” But this statute, which is purely procedural, , does not confer a right to a jury trial on the prosecution nor speak at all to the issue of whether the defendant’s waiver requires the prosecution’s consent.
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
("We do not think [A.R.S.
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Ybarra 160 P.3d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Westburne Supply, Inc. v. Diversified Design & Constr., Inc., -01 , -27 (App.1992) ( , ) (“What a statute necessarily implies is as much a part of the statute as what it makes explicit.”); , (“If the Legislature intended to grant a jury trial in every case, it would have no doubt said so in plain, explicit language.”); Smith, 211 Ariz. at 104, ¶ 11 , 118 P.3d at 52 (to same effect).
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Reinstein 150 P.3d 782 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Pamela Manic v. Tucson City Attorney's Office Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Additionally, the respondent magistrate found, that neither A.R.S.
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Phoenix City Prosecutor's Office v. Klausner 118 P.3d 1141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
a defendant sought a trial by jury after being charged with assault and battery in violation of Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-241(B).
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
State ex rel. Wangberg v. Smith 118 P.3d 49 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 9 Despite this plain language, the State argues that, , demonstrates that the legislature did not intend to grant a jury trial right to persons charged with misdemeanor DUI unless the right otherwise exists.
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
Ottaway v. Smith 113 P.3d 1247 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 3 At common law, a defendant typically did not have the right to a jury trial for a “petty offense,” and neither the United States nor the Arizona Constitution provide a right to a jury trial but, instead, simply preserve a defendant’s common-law right to a trial by jury of “serious offenses.” See, , (citing Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 , 88 S.Ct.
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
Derendal v. Griffith 104 P.3d 147 Ariz. 2005
See, e.g., Goldman v. Kautz, 111 Ariz. 431, 432, Rothweiler, 100 Ariz. at 42, 410 P.2d at 482; Bowden, 26 Ariz. at 491, 226 P. at 551.
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
Benitez v. Dunevant 7 P.3d 99 Ariz. 2000
selling liquor to a minor, see Spitz, , , operating without a contractor’s license, , simple assault, , simple assault designated as domestic violence, see Strohson, 190 Ariz. at 120 , 945 P.2d at 1251 , and disorderly conduct, see Baumert, , ; O’Neill, , .
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Bazzanella v. Tucson City Court 988 P.2d 157 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
State Ex Rel. McDougall v. Strohson 945 P.2d 1251 Ariz. 1997
*123 this court rejected the request for a jury trial where the charge was simple assault and battery.
Campbell v. Superior Court 924 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Distinguished Campbell v. Superior Court 924 P.2d 1045 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
Matter of Marquardt 778 P.2d 241 Ariz. 1989
State Ex Rel. Dean v. Dolny 778 P.2d 1193 Ariz. 1989
State Ex Rel. Dean v. Dolny 778 P.2d 1193 Ariz. 1989
See, , , see also Baldwin v. New York, 399 U.S. 66 , 90 S.Ct.
State v. Richey 762 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Richey 762 P.2d 585 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
See, e.g., Baumert, 127 Ariz. at 154 , 618 P.2d at 1080 (disorderly conduct); , (sale of alcoholic beverages to minors); , (simple assault and battery); O’Neill, 103 Ariz. at 485 , 445 P.2d at 844 (drunken and disorderly conduct).
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson 687 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State Ex Rel. Dean v. City Court of Tucson 687 P.2d 369 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
State v. Moreno 655 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Moreno 655 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
Baumert v. Superior Court, supra; drunk and disorderly conduct, O’ , or assault and battery, , in all of which the Arizona courts have held that the defendant was not entitled to a jury trial.
Spitz v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix 621 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1980
Spitz v. Municipal Court of City of Phoenix 621 P.2d 911 Ariz. 1980
City Court of City of Tucson v. Lee, 16 Ariz.App.
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 618 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1980
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. 618 P.2d 1078 Ariz. 1980
Bruce v. State 614 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1980
Bruce v. State 614 P.2d 813 Ariz. 1980
City of Phoenix v. Jones 542 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
City of Phoenix v. Jones 542 P.2d 1145 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
In doing so, , had already made this reconciliation and reached a decision diametrically opposed to that reached in our prior opinion.
Springer v. Industrial Commission 533 P.2d 1166 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975